You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Sure, your post illustrates it well, but the way you framed your post was not to answer *why* it was difficult to understand, you framed it such that you were saying, 'Ni...for those of you who don't 'get it', is.......'

Hence my post.

In any event, we'll have to agree to disagree that the bulk - or even a significant fraction - of what constitutes Ni is mysticism, symbolism, and metaphor. Most, if not all, of the Ni-ers on this forum don't speak in mysticisms and the Ni-ness is evident in other ways, so I think equating Ni with what you're equating it with does Ni a grave disservice.

But...this isn't the thread to go back and forth on this point, so I just want to say that and I don't think I'm gonna debate it any more. Plus I have to go to yoga now.

All I can say is "Wow".. and enjoy your Yoga..

Or you might like this article..

Moving on, the INFJ often has a vivid imagination and can appear ‘mystical’ to others. Now we are beginning to tread on shaky ground, for mysticism does not sit well with the modern, objective, scientific mindset. But didn’t I just suggest that philosophy leads to temporary logic? Right now, most philosophy is logical, because we live in a technological world. Logic forms the basis for our Western society, and philosophy is always a product of its age. Thus, philosophy currently looks down its collective nose at mystical thought. This, however, is beginning to change. Our culture is becoming less logical and more mystical. And, as our society adjusts, so do the philosophers. We will examine this process in a few pages.
So what is mysticism and how does it relate to the INFJ? In essence, mysticism says that something lies behind the physical world and that the relationship between the sensory world and this ‘something’ is irrational and emotional. These beliefs are a natural byproduct of INFJ processing. It begins with Extraverted Feeling that inhales emotional experiences directly from the external world. This emotional identification allows the mind to ignore the external structure from which these experiences came. The INFJ then jumps to Introverted iNtuition, which ties emotional memories together to form an internal structure. That is, the INFJ goes directly from emotional Mercy experience to general Teacher theory, skipping any intervening steps. This, I suggest, is the mental basis for mysticism. It lives in a world of blended Mercy and Teacher feelings. It identifies with the Mercy emotions of human existence and superimposes upon this a grid of confabulated Teacher order. It is this direct jump from Mercy to Teacher that produces the irrationalism. Rational thinking uses Perceiver facts and Server sequences to build a comprehensive Teacher understanding of Mercy situations. It goes from Mercy to Teacher, but not directly. Summarizing in one statement, it is the elimination of Perceiver and Server confidence that distinguishes mysticism from rational understanding.So, why does the INFJ follow mysticism? Because of the S/N and T/F splits. T/F says that living in subjective feelings means throwing logic out of the window. Similarly S/N states that Teacher-guided iNtuition ignores Sensing and its associated Server sequences.

Introverted iNtuitives are the world's mystics, prophets and visionaries. Future oriented, they see and seek the trends of the future, and are surprised that others don't see them as easily as they do. They pick up patterns, symbols and images, usually going from the specific occurrence to the general application, and seem to see into the future. They can look at very different, contradictory information, issues and situations, and see the thread of similarity that connects them or weaves them together. They process things beneath their awareness, giving them "ah-hah!" moments when the formed connection pops into their consciousness.

I do not believe you are being fair in saying I am doing anything a "disservice".. To me, the disservice would rather be, in misinforming people by trying ever so subtlety to discredit what I am saying, When clearly, a Simple "Google" of Introverted Intuition + Mysticism yields instant results backing up what I was previously expressing.
Perhaps it is the "Ni users" you speak of, that are mistyped, if that is your basis of what is a service and what isn't.
I speak of a Big picture and you tell me it doesn't exist?
I think not in this case anyway.

Meh, we're not speaking the same language and are missing each others' points. In any event, yes, I think many of the Ni descriptions, and their focus on mysticism, suck (in addition to people - and many people on the forum do this - honing in on those words in any description and making them out to be more than they are, which is simply a descriptive, and somewhat deceiving (imo), word to describe some of the processes that they're not actually describing), and they are what contribute to everyone in mbti-land being befuddled about what Ni is and how it works. Because, I DO think it can be explained, and at least for myself, in any Ni threads that come up on here, I make it a point to try to do so and to make it less voodoo-esque. In my opinion, some of the analogies uumlau was utilizing were doing a good job of trying to break the process down. However externally since no one sees this internal process, obviously it might 'appear' to be mystic or whatever.

But nah - I have always all along just said how *I* operate, as well as how various Ni users on this forum and in real life whom I know operate (how they communicate, the types of conclusions drawn, how and what they focus on), to try to pin down what it 'really is' and to formulate my own understanding of it, and frankly I don't feel the need to pull Ni descriptions off the net for use to support what I believe Ni to be, because I believe many of the definitions are lacking and yes, they in some cases *don't* support what I believe to be true. Much of the internet sources are riddled with contradictions anyway.

Edit - As for the article you posted on INFJ's and mysticism, frankly I find it extremely hokey and incomprehensible in terms of placing it into how I see myself and my own internal processing, and I'm quite certain I'm Ni-dom. Now perhaps an outsider might hold the opinion that I'm doing all of the stuff that you bolded, but that blurb in the end is just the opinion of one individual and his own ideas of Ni - just as what I'm typing here is my own opinion about Ni. Who's right? Are bits wrong from that excerpt and bits right, but other bits of mine right and others wrong? Now THAT is up to everyone's judgment.

"...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

Jung is often typed as INTP (and I heard/read somewhere that he typed himself as INTP or Ti, but I don't have a source), yet if you read his writing, such as his original text on types, it doesn't read anything like an INTP would write: it's full of Ni-thinking. So, in MBTI terms, he was definitely an "introverted thinker" (INTx), but his writing makes it clear that INTJ (Ni) is far more probable than INTP (Ti). So, if I am right, and the originator of the concept of Ni couldn't see it in himself, what are we to make of Ni?

To me...Ni 'looks' like a universe of ideas through which I navigate with an incomplete map. Not mystical, but abstract. I fancy the universe of ideas appearing like the Hubble Deep Field.

“To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

It's because Ni doms simply use it imperceptibly, while an Ni aux's answer may seem overshadowed by their extraverted dominant function.

I couldn't tell you how Ne works, but I can tell you it's an explanation for why I'll spend entirely too much time on solving a problem at times. Couldn't tell you how it's different from sensing, but I can tell you that others' attitudes toward creativity can be off-putting at time. Couldn't tell you what it looks like in other people, but I can tell you when I'm interacting with another in a way that seems most natural.

The best way I can describe it is "you see the thing that the other person just did? I was thinking the same thing" or "you think that conversation was random? It wasn't, and here's why..." It's the extension of thematic unity that describes it best.

Now, imagine a similar but different process, but you can't see it in other people. No wonder it's so hard to describe.

I Only felt the need to pull articles off the net because your comment implied "Disservice" and That was simply not a true statement, and no one else is going to come to my assistance when my integrity or knowledge is being questioned

Spirituality is totally linked to Ni.. Perhaps that is what we are not communicating??
To me it is essential.. If you don't understand how speaking to the universe is part of Ni.. Then I am not really sure what else to say.
Except that it works for me.. intuitively.

Or perhaps because I am an Fe dom, I mix too much Fe into my idea and don't realize where they split cognitively.

OK This is what I am being told.. In my first post.. I needed to imply that I was not joining the discussion in progress .. But rather answering the OP who is apparently an NI dom, asking why they are having trouble understanding their dominant function.. SO Apparently I posted about Ni in Ni terms and not simple succinct terms, so that only an Ni user would get what I was saying. And I was out of sequence.

This is well explained, and I understand why I seemed to be coming out of nowhere and confusing those who were in a discussion..

For this I apologize.. I assume people know what I am talking about. I was sticking to the OP.

I am also being told that I was being treated a tad rudely.. so meh!!! It's all good.

Okay, tying together replies to a few different posts here, so bear with me..

For what it's worth, the untempered, stereotypical Ni does have a problem communicating its conclusions. It has an even worse time communicating its 'reasoning.' It's quite different from a metric-based way of thought or from a linearized, step-by-step mode of operation, that which Arclight rightfully points to as the way the world "thinks."

After all, we often communicate directly and indirectly via metrics. It's insanely convenient, and often very useful. Lenore describes it as "lowest common denominator" thinking--but in a good way. A metric is a page to which we can all ascribe if we know what it is intended to represent.

For example--"which sports team is the better team?" Well, we answer that question by tallying up and reporting the number of goals made by each team.

"Is this restaurant healthy?" Well, the health department inspected it and gave it a big red score of "95" and plastered a signed plaque on the wall, so I suppose it is.

However, we've abstracted away the details in both of these instances--the metrics can't capture everything, well-designed though they may be. We've measured teamwork and sportsmanship only very, very indirectly, for example.

Some of the missed details--some of the essence of each situation that has just been abstracted away--could be very, very meaningful to some, and it's unfortunate that a system's dynamic and a sense of its true inner workings is sometimes lost.

Unfortunately, since the world communicates in this way, the Ni process must adapt in some way. That might mean sacrificing some essence, but.. well, it's communication.

So, if there's a 'mystical' quality to be had in Ni, it probably refers to the disconnect between the Ni process and the outside world--and, often, between the process and the user itself.

Spirituality is totally linked to Ni.. Perhaps that is what we are not communicating??
To me it is essential.. If you don't understand how speaking to the universe is part of Ni.. Then I am not really sure what else to say.
Except that it works for me.. intuitively.

Or perhaps because I am an Fe dom, I mix too much Fe into my idea and don't realize where they split cognitively.

I think there are various possibilities here, and I'm not sure which one to focus on.

Initial thought is that spirituality may be a byproduct of Ni, but it's not really tied to Ni as an active cognitive process. Meaning, *maybe* everyone who's spiritual -- of all types -- is tapping into Ni in some way when they're using that outlook, but to say Ni as a cognitive process, in its everyday use by dom/aux Ni'ers =spirituality is an untruth, I think -- and all of the dom-Si'ers, and dom-Ne'ers and NFP's would probably take great issue to this tie of Ni to spirituality. Unless of course it's just tapping into Ni, for everyone - to find that spiritual / more 'mystical' / one-with-the universe view.

Other thought is... I also think ultimately spirituality resides more in ones value set. So Ni in and of itself may have nothing to do with spirituality in the strict sense of the word - i.e. a higher power /thing tying the universe together - and thus spirituality has nothing to do with cognitive functions at all (and I'm hard-pressed to think that there IS any tie? I mean, people of every single mbti type could be quite spiritual, or else quite un-spiritual), it's more ones own value set / conclusions drawn regarding that. (i.e. I'm thinking of all of the atheist Ni-ers in the world, who would have no strictly spiritual leaning at all)

But if your reference to the universe and such is simply purely descriptive, and you're really just meaning looking at the bigger context in general and finding underlying truths, then yeah, that's a part of Ni (it's also part of the deconstruction uumlau was talking about -- taking pages from one book and tying them to another book to come up with a new, perhaps more all-encompassing, truth) --- but that's nothing to do with actual spirituality, at least in the way I tend to view it.

"...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce